I really don't see what all the fuss is about.

Whilst some clubs are in a better state than others (largely because of big investors whose permanence is not guaranteed by any means) the game as a whole is in a financial mess. Is this question disputed any more?

Are we better off with 14 teams? I can't say what financial benefit the inclusion of additional sides offer but I've not seen much benefit on the field so far.

When we shifted over to the salary cap and tweaked the rules in order to promote junior development I had hoped we'd see an influx of high quality youngsters across the board by now. Of course, I didn't expect to see the kind of competition for international places the Australians perpetually seem to possess but I did think we'd be able to put together 13 players of a pretty high standard. Yes, we are able to field a decent pack but over the past ten years we've put out some of the worst back lines I've seen in years. And I won't even begin to mention the halves.

Ahhh your problem is you think everything would be fixed instantly. It's a common problem in RL.

We are starting to see a backline that can challenge that of the Aussies, maybe halves too (though this is dependant on the coach not picking the Leeds loose forward at stand off)

But of course, it the fix isn't instant effective we need to return to the system that's never worked. Ever.

You have perpetuated this myth on another thread and been shown to be wrong.

Please give evidence that shows how the RFL helping Keighley obtain an underlease on their ground has made them into "the manchester city" of the championship.

And I don't include the pre-match mind games of a coach with one of his ex players as proof.

I agree, we are now starting to see the products of encouraging better youth development. I can't see what benefit reducing the current number of SuperLeague clubs will bring in further encouraging that development. Even London Broncos now have some decent local talent entering their ranks, not too bad seeing as most of the rest of the league had nearly 100 years start on them.

Despite the efforts of the RFL & BARLA to foster closer relationships between the professional and amateur ranks (thanks mainly to Richard Lewis), there are still problems. Amateur clubs see their best young players getting cherry-picked, often en-masse, by pro clubs. Many of these players are then often discarded as not being "good enough" and all too often they are then lost completely to the game. There's no doubt that more needs to be done in relation to player development and retention (in the game as a whole) but I'm convinced that we've been heading in the right direction.

What we currently have may not be the best we can hope for but the solution does not lie in going backwards, we need to progress further. Reducing the number of Superleague teams is not the solution, it is a retrograde step, one that is designed to offer a short-term fix to what a small number of clubs see as a way to cover their own lack of effort and expertise in promoting the game.

Quote ="Tre Cool"Neil Hudgell sounds like a moron.'" And Mcmanus? www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Quote ="Tre Cool"Neil Hudgell sounds like a moron.'" And Mcmanus? www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480

Quote ="Easty"And Mcmanus? www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480'" Not as moronic as Hudgell

Quote ="Easty"And Mcmanus? www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480'" Not as moronic as Hudgell

No, my PROBLEM is with fans who consider "Progress" unquestionably beneficial provided it is solely on their terms on no one else's.



You'll forgive me for waiting until we do start sticking it to them rather than agreeing exclusively on the evidence of a crystal ball.



Yes, because that's precisely the course of action all fans advocate. Aren't you clever.

rfl isn't bankrupt, its the clubs who over spend on players, mainly sub-standard, don't get the crowds they hope for then go whinging to the press in hope of some compassion and handout! imo of course

spot on.

you can't make a silk purse our of a sows ear. The game needs to be strong, in the publics mind and perceived as an exciting sport to follow as much as clubs need to market better and attract fans to their clubs.

And that would be better achieved by foregoing Sky money and giving the game away to FTA?

never said such a thing, I said they should get the game on FTA, if it means a short term hit on sky exclusivity, whatever that may be worth (given Sky only show two SL games a week I doubt many subscribers sign up purely for the RL anyway), . Get the game on FTA, get a million people watching it a week and see the interest grow, the corporates get more interested and the media start to sit up and take notice. At the moment it is hidden from 2/3rds of the country.

Sky wouldn’t be interested without exclusivity.

What makes you think FTA television - which effectively means either BBC, ITV, C4, 5 or a Freeview broadcaster with an even smaller viewer base than Sky - has any interest in turning over two hours of its prime time weekend programming to a minority sport like rugby league, even if it got it for free?

There would still be costs involved to the broadcaster in running an outside broadcast, hiring in freelance presenters etc, with no evidence of being able to make these costs back through increased advertising.

Premiership rugby union has no live FTA coverage. Even the current best Test cricket side in the world has no FTA coverage. Why would anyone be interested in RL?

Undoubtedly RL is in difficult times. Last time there was a big recession, and when SL came along, clubs sold grounds to survive and span it is a great new dawn, moving to newer stadia. As I pointed out then, come the next economic downturn or a cut in TV funding there would be no assets to mortgage to keep things going. So, difficult times ahead.

The country's been in recession since 2009, so RL's done pretty well to cope with the economic climate so far. A lot better than the High Street, I might add.

Do you know of any links to UK TV viewing audiences? I'd be interested to know what current Sat & Sun afternoon viewing figues are across the channels.

Are you going to give an answer anytime soon, or are you just firefighting on every thread you post on?

I only have sky sports for rugby league I can not stand wendy ball if sky did not have rugby league i think i would slash my throat if it was not on only kiding

I am really weary of this reduce the number of clubs mantra.
It always comes from those who feel it would benefit their own clubs.
Reduction would be a backward step.
The game would have a lower profile and therefore even less monies coming in.
The answer is exactly the opposite in my opinion.
Bring in more gradually , with a lower salary cap, limit foreign imports to two per club ,and bring in a higher number of locally produced players who must be included in each 17 on match day.

Salary cap needs to match SL grant, if we lose a couple more players to RU or fail to bring over a couple more NRL reserve graders so be it. I would also put a min income level on SL clubs as the main part of the SL license requirement. If you can't meet whatever is needed to be a sustainable SL club on the agreed salary cap then bye bye. Reality is the SL is no better for being 14 teams than it was for being 12 and probably would be if it was 10. If it is weaker is debateable but I certainly do not see it as stronger.

I do.

Me too.

Me too

Is RU 'bankrupt' just cos Wycombe Wasps are going bust? I hope so.